Calling BS on "Combat Handguns" magazine

[Standing Wolf]

We'd be a much happier, safer, saner nation if armed robbers lived in fear of their lives.

 

[DRZinn]

Wonder if it would help if the shooter was a former Marine, who'd had it drilled into his skull that one of the justifications for the use of deadly force is "In defense of property not involving national security but inherently dangerous to others." A pistol in the hand of an armed robber is definitely inherently dangerous to others....

 

[Master Blaster]

That same scenario would be A-OK in Delaware.

The standard for deadly force is did the robber put you in FEAR for your life or the life and safety of another???

Could the robber be a danger to someone else?

Is he on your property committing a crime??? has a weapon been displayed???

All, one, or any of the above and you can use deadly force.

So when one takes a CCW course in DE the instructor will tell you use deadly force if you fear for your life. Make sure you tell the first police officer on the scene:

Officer I feared for my life, and or the safety/life of another.

 

[Janitor]

The idea that all of us who carry should retain attorneys is infantile.

Really? How so?

 

[Stand_Watie]

I also call "BS" on the "it happened to me" section of 'Combat Handguns'.

Not because I disagree with the outcome of the scenario presented in the supposed letter, but because all of the items in that section, simply put, read like dimestore western era fiction - not in facts but in presentation.

Either the magazine has a bunch of "gunkid"s sending them letters or they have an editor that is making up the stories. No one has yet told of their 'assault wheelbarrow', but I expect it next month.

Manedwolf, in most of Texas that scenario wouldn't produce charges against the shooter.

Wonder if it would help if the shooter was a former Marine, who'd had it drilled into his skull that one of the justifications for the use of deadly force is "In defense of property not involving national security but inherently dangerous to others."

Doczinn, I have a high opinion of the USMC and this enhances it. If you have an idea where I can find an exact, citable quote of that particular regulation I'd like to have it just to squirrel away in my little 'thoughts for the day' quotable quote book.

 

[Zen21Tao]

Scenario- You are in the aisle at a convenience store, at the counter a fellow pulls a gun and demands money. Would it be murder to put a round in the back of his skull?

In Florida NO. Deadly force is ok to defend one's own life, the life of another and to prevent/end a forcible felony.

 

[DRZinn]

If you have an idea where I can find an exact, citable quote of that particular regulation I'd like to have it just to squirrel away in my little 'thoughts for the day' quotable quote book.

I'll try to find it online.

Edit: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html2/d521056x.htm

E2. ENCLOSURE 2

GUIDANCE ON USE OF DEADLY FORCE

E2.1.1. Guidance regarding the use of deadly force is provided in paragraph E2.1.2., below. The Heads of the DoD Components shall consult, as appropriate, with the General Counsel, Department of Defense, the General Counsel of the DoD Component, or their designees, for legal sufficiency of the DoD Component's use of deadly force implementing guidance. The Heads of the DoD Components, or their designees, may impose further restrictions on the use of deadly force if deemed necessary in their judgment and if such restrictions would not unduly compromise the national security interests of the United States.

E2.1.2. Deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity and when all three of the following circumstances are present:

E2.1.2.1. Lesser means have been exhausted, are unavailable, or cannot be reasonably employed;

E2.1.2.2. The risk of death or serious bodily harm to innocent persons is not significantly increased by use; and

E2.1.2.3. The purpose of its use is one or more of the following:

E2.1.2.3.1. Self-Defense and Defense of Others. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary against a hostile person(s) to protect law enforcement or security personnel who reasonably believe themselves or others to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm by the hostile person(s).

E2.1.2.3.2. Assets Involving National Security. When deadly force reasonably appears necessary to prevent the actual theft or sabotage of assets vital to national security. DoD assets shall be specifically designated as "vital to national security" only when their loss, damage, or compromise would seriously jeopardize the fulfillment of a national defense mission. Examples include nuclear weapons; nuclear command, control, and communications facilities; and designated restricted areas containing strategic operational assets, sensitive codes, or special access programs.

E2.1.2.3.3. Assets Not Involving National Security But Inherently Dangerous To Others. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the actual theft or sabotage of resources, such as operable weapons or ammunition, that are inherently dangerous to others; i.e., assets that, in the hands of an unauthorized individual, present a substantial potential danger of death or serious bodily harm to others. Examples include high-risk portable and lethal missiles, rockets, arms, ammunition, explosives, chemical agents, and special nuclear material.

E2.1.2.3.4. Serious Offenses Against Persons. When deadly force reasonably appears necessary to prevent the commission of a serious crime that involves imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (for example, setting fire to an inhabited dwelling or sniping), including the defense of other persons, where deadly force is directed against the person threatening to commit the crime. Examples include murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault.

E2.1.2.3.5. Protect Public Health or Safety. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the destruction of public utilities or similar critical infrastructure vital to public health or safety, the damage to which, would create an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

E2.1.2.3.6. Arrest or Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to arrest or apprehend a person who, there is probable cause to believe, has committed one of the serious offenses referred to in subparagraphs E2.1.2.3.2. through E2.1.2.3.5., above.

E2.1.2.3.7. Escape. When deadly force has been specifically authorized by the Heads of the DoD Components and reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner, provided there is probable cause to believe that such person:

E2.1.2.3.7.1 Has committed or attempted to commit one of the serious offenses referred to in subparagraphs E2.1.2.3.2. through E2.1.2.3.5., above; and

E2.1.2.3.7.2 Would pose an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm to law enforcement or security personnel or to any other person.

E2.1.3. For contract security forces, use of deadly force criteria shall be established consistent with this Directive and local law.

E2.1.4. Personnel shall not be permitted to perform law enforcement or security duties requiring the use of weapons until they have received instruction on applicable regulations for the use of deadly force in the performance of such duties. Additionally, annual refresher training shall be given to all personnel assigned to those duties to ensure that they continue to be thoroughly familiar with all restrictions on the use of deadly force.

E2.1.5. Personnel carrying weapons for personal protection under the provisions of paragraph E1.1.3., enclosure 1, shall have the necessary training on deadly force commensurate with that prescribed by this Directive.

E2.1.6. Additional requirements for the use of firearms:

E2.1.6.1. Warning shots are prohibited.

E2.1.6.2. When a firearm is discharged, it will be fired with the intent of rendering the person(s) at whom it is discharged incapable of continuing the activity or course of behavior prompting the individual to shoot.

E2.1.6.3. Shots shall be fired only with due regard for the safety of innocent bystanders.

E2.1.6.4. In the case of holstered weapons, a weapon should not be removed from the holster unless there is reasonable expectation that use of the weapon may be necessary.

E2.1.6.5. The Heads of the DoD Components may establish additional considerations in implementing procedures over the use of firearms.

 

[shield20]

Legal here in NY...

4. A private person acting on his or her own account may use physical
force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to
the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom
he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in
fact has committed such offense; and may use deadly physical force for
such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she
reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical
force; or

(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.

 

[Stand_Watie]

DocZinn, that's exactly what I was looking for, thanks. It sounds like they still have their heads screwed on straight in the USMC. The online citation is important to me because if I quote it later I want to be able to prove it.

Edit - it looks to me like that is a DoD directive and as such applies to all active US forces, not just USMC. Even better.

 

[DRZinn]

However, the longer one is out of the military the less chance it has of working.

 

[bcochran]

Will Rogers

Yes, I read the article. Yes, the laws vary from state to state.

Comment on observation that there is really "bs" in gun magazines.

I am astonished that you have come to that conclusion. What triggered that impression. Is it that coincidentally a full page ad is running at the same time an article is extolling the attributes of the latest whiz bang?

To paraphrase Will Rogers (as if he were a gun magazine writer): "I've never reviewed a gun that I didn't like".

What I absolutely enjoy in gun mags are photographs associated with articles wherein the shooter has a scope on his handgun and is running through a tough realistic shooting competition wearing running shorts, jackets with advertising, mean looking sun glasses and always shooting statically. I dream up images of our policeman, our military, my neighbors and store owners similarly attired and carrying scoped pistols in my world. The bad guys are always static, you don't have to worry about someone shooting at you, you never have to go down on a knee on hot pavement, rocks or dirt.

Shame on you! Everything is gun magazines is accurate and you can stake your life on it!

 

[sturmruger]

I read the same article and was a little suprised that the store clerk didn't get thrown in jail. As I started to mull over the details I decided that is must have happened a long time ago, or in a state that allows such actions. The bg is dead and the gg is free sounds like a happy ending to me.

In my opinion these guns mags could spend about an hour and verify these stories so that we have some idea if they are true or not. Gun mags are interesting to look at, but are not very credible in my opinion.

 

[TEX]

Yep, the law in Texas basically says that if someone is stealing your property and you have no reasonable expectation of recovering it, you can use deadly force, even if their back is to you. In fact from what I have gathered, you are under far more liberal contraints than a Police Officer. You don't have to give any verbal warning, challenge, etc. Just light them up if they are in commission of such a crime. Just be damn sure of what's transpiring, especially when it come to defending or helping out a third party.

I set sort of the same personal standards as Sistema1927, in that I do not really want to shoot at anyone over property. Not that I don't think they deserve shooting and that it wouldn't improve society, but for other reasons. One is a possible civil suit even when "No Billed", but also because it gives me the chills to think about discharging a round in an uncontrolled environment, especially a large caliber rifle. If you missed or it went through the Goblin, where will it end up. Your neighbor's daughter's bedroom, etc. Yikes!!

I think the only time I would shoot over attempted or in progress property theft would be if it the objects being stolen were a major key to my making a living (tools of trade not immediately replaceable) or something dangerous like a firearm, that I would assume they would do harm to others with. The part about being reasonably able to recover the property was to keep a divorcing couple or business partners from killing each other when one decides to start dividing things up before such issues are settled in court (or so Iwas told at CHL class)

Here is a thought however. If the property that was being stolen, was insured, was it not in fact recoverable? How long will it take some bleeding heart DA to take this angle. Thank God Grand Juries get to hear the case before it proceeds with prosecution. Some DAs in Texas (the one here in Houston) have a personal agenda and have even said they plan to ignore recently passed pro-gun type laws and prosecute under their own standards. Arrogant syphilitic bastards! Sorry - got carried away!

There was even a case here in Harris County, years back, where a fella was having his car repossessed and shot the wrecker driver at a distance as he was driving off. He knew they were looking for the unpaid for vehicle, but he still killed the wrecker driver who was towing the past due ride away. I don't think that it was the action a reasonable person would take, but he was either No Billed or found not guilty at trial; can't remember which. I think the guy was sued civilly and I also heard that he took his own life a few years later over the whole mess.

The only thing we don't have here in Texas, but is probably soon to come, is the ability to stand your ground when personaly injury or death is threatened. This presently applies only to your home, or temp home, like a hotel room, etc. Otherwise you are expected to make good an escape if possible. I think this only encourages bad guys. I think Goblins fear armed victims more than they do all the cops, courts and prisons in the country. Well, maybe K-( units also, but you get the point. I think we may also get a right to secure our CHL weapons in our vehicles at our employer's parking area soon also. Fingers crossed.

As a general rule, and probably why the guy in Austin was not prosecuted, is that Texans feel pretty much like if you are up to serious no-good, you should be shot; to death if possible. If I was on a Grand Jury or the Trial Jury, the DA would sure have to go to extremes to get me to vote against the defedant in such a case. You still hear the phrase "He should to be shot" or "He needs shooten" around these parts, and they are usually serious about the comment. : )

TEX

 

[Rockstar]

Janitor: Think, the experience will set you free. Ayoob's paranoia and general ignorance about legal matters are legend.

 

[GSB]

Uh...hello? In what state would THAT be legal? I would expect that guy would be in jail for at least voluntary manslaughter?

There have been a couple of cases in the city I live in where an armed robber was shot while fleeing and no charges were filed. IIRC, in one case the guy chased the perp in a car before shooting him. Yeah, I live in the South. No, I don't really get it either, especially in the car chase example, since technically it is against the law in this state. And no, I don't have any links. They were news stories that came and went and that just stuck out in my mind because they seemed unusual at the time. I'm reasonably certain that had these incidents occured in Mass. or NJ, things would have beeen very different.

So it's not necessarily BS. Sometimes DA's just don't bother with a case for whatever reason.